Delhi High Court - Orders
Akshay Mohan Duggal vs Lic Housing Finance Ltd & Ors on 24 March, 2026
Author: Jasmeet Singh
Bench: Jasmeet Singh
$~97
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3788/2026 & CM APPL. 18548/2026, CM APPL.
18549/2026
AKSHAY MOHAN DUGGAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amit Dwivedi, Mr. Kumar
Abhishek, Mr. Adarsh Priyadarshi,
Mr. Sheeshpal Singh, Advs.
versus
LIC HOUSING FINANCE LTD & ORS. .....Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
ORDER
% 24.03.2026
1. This is a writ petition filed under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers:-
"i. Allow the present Petition.
ii. Issue a Writ in Mandamus/Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby quashing the impugned demand notice dated 12.03.2026 20 (Annexure P-12) and directing the Respondent NO.1 Banks/Financial Institution to not charge the pre-EMIs or full EMIs from the Petitioner. iii. Issue a Writ in Mandamus/Certiorari or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondent No.1 Bank/Financial Institution to charge all pre-EMIs/full EMIs, until possession is delivered, from the Respondent Builder/Real Estate Developers and not from the Petitioner.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 21:45:41 iv. Issue a Writ in Mandamus/Certiorari or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondent NO.1 Bank/Financial Institution to refund the pre-EMIs/full EMIs already paid by the Petitioner and recover the same from Respondent No. 3 (Builder).
v. Issue a Writ in Mandamus/Certiorari or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondent No.2 (RBI) to frame and enforce clear and strict guidelines to regulate transactions under subvention schemes in the real estate sector and penalise banks/financial institutions for violations/non-compliances. vi. Issue a Writ in Mandamus/Certiorari directing the Respondent State/Authorities to ensure delivery of the Petitioner's flat within a time-bound manner or return the money paid by the Petitioner with interest and compensation in the event of failure to give the possession.
vii. Quash and set aside CC NO. 6582/2021 titled M/S LIC HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED VS. AKSHAY MOHAN DUGGAL, JMFC, NI Act, Digital Court-01, New Delhi District filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Annexure P-10).
viii. Direct Respondent No.1 not to take any coercive action under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 against the Petitioner. ..."
2. The petitioner is a home-buyer and the Respondent No. 1 i.e., LIC Housing Finance Ltd., is a statutory body, constituted under the National Housing Bank Act, 1987, entrusted with regulation and supervision of housing finance institutions in India.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 21:45:41
3. Respondent No. 3 is a real estate developer engaged in the business of development and sale of residential projects, including the project "Cosmo Court" situated at Sector 86, Gurgoan.
4. It is stated by Mr. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner booked an apartment bearing Unit No. D-1103, Block D admeasuring 1750 sq. ft. in project of respondent namely "Cosmo Court" to which respondent no. 3 issued an allotment letter dated 28.02.2013 to petitioner. The petitioner paid a booking amount of Rs. 15,73,990/-. Accordingly, an Agreement to Sell dated 02.01.2014 was executed.
5. A Tripartite Agreement was executed between the petitioner, respondents Nos. 1 and 3, under which respondent No. 1 disbursed two tranche i.e., Rs. 12,00,660/- and Rs. 4,23,772/-, to respondent No. 3 and the property stood charged to respondent No. 1 as mortgaged.
6. The possession of the flat was to be delivered by 02.07.2018.
7. However, respondent No. 3 failed to complete the construction and the petitioner paid 81 EMIs amounting to Rs. 13,33,425/- to respondent No. 1.
8. As per the petitioner, respondent No. 3 is under CIRP proceedings. It is stated by learned counsel or the petitioner that the petitioner has already paid a total sum of Rs. 16,51,176/- to respondent No. 3 and Rs. 13,33,425/- to respondent No. 1 from his own resources for a flat which has neither been constructed and nor the possession of which has been handed over.
9. It is also stated that the Tripartite Agreement was a construction-
linked plan and the respondent No. 1 was to release payment in This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 21:45:41 accordance with the stage of construction.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner, draws my attention to Clause 88 of the Master Direction - Non-Banking Financial Company - Housing Finance Company (Reserve Bank) Directions, 2021, which reads as under:
"88. Disbursement of housing loan to individuals linked to the stages of construction 88.1. Disbursal of housing loans sanctioned to individuals shall be strictly linked to the stages of construction of the housing projects/ houses and upfront disbursal shall not be made in case of incomplete/ under-construction/ green field housing project/ houses.
88.2. HFCs while introducing any kind of product shall take into account the customer suitability and appropriateness issues and also ensure that the borrowers/ customers are made fully aware of the risk and liabilities under such products.
88.3. In cases of projects sponsored by Government/ Statutory Authorities, HFCs may disburse the loans as per the payment stages prescribed by such authorities, even where payments sought from house buyers are not linked to the stages of construction, provided such authorities have no past history of non-completion of projects. 88.4. HFCs shall desist from offering loan products involving servicing of the loan dues by builders/ developers etc. on behalf of the borrowers.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 21:45:41 88.5. HFCs shall have in place a well-defined mechanism for effective monitoring of the progress of construction of housing projects and obtaining consent of the borrower(s) prior to release of payments to the builder/developer. 88.6. HFCs while extending finance shall take into account the stipulations laid down under RERA, as applicable."
(Emphasis added)
11. A perusal of the aforesaid clauses, indicates that respondent No. 2/ RBI cautions the banks not to disburse the entire loan in one go but do it according to the stage of construction.
12. Both the circulars have been given a total go-by by respondent No. 1.
13. The matter requires consideration.
14. For the said reasons, issue notice to the respondents through all modes, including electronic, on the petitioner taking steps, within one week from today, returnable on 14.05.2026.
CM APPL. 18547/202615. This is an application filed under Section 151 of CPC, 1908 seeking ex-parte ad interim stay.
16. For the reasons stated above, it is clear that the petitioner is prima facie, a victim of collusion between respondent Nos. 1 and 3.
17. Despite not getting flat or even the flat having been constructed, the petitioner has paid a sum of about Rs. 16,51,176/- to respondent No. 3 and Rs. 13,33,425/- to respondent No. 1.
18. The actions of respondent No. 1 prima-facie, seem to be in violation of circular dated 19.07.2019 and Master Direction - Non-Banking Financial Company - Housing Finance Company (Reserve Bank) This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 21:45:41 Directions, 2021.
19. For the said reasons, I am satisfied that the petitioner has a prima facie case and the balance of convenience lies in favor of the petitioner and the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and injury which would be contrary to the terms of the contract.
20. Hence, respondent No. 1 is restrained from taking any coercive action against the petitioner based upon the above loan transactions till the next date of hearing.
21. List on 14.05.2026.
JASMEET SINGH, J MARCH 24, 2026/sp This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 21:45:41